Moral Quotient

An Apostolic Adventure – Part 2

What follows is a series of articles on our next steps

2.1 Some Initial Clarification

2.2 Building an Apostolic Future

2.3 The Question of Primary Relationships and other Practical Points

2.4 Pruning for Sustainable Growth

2.5 Building in Accountable Unity

2.6 Defending an Accountable Unity

2.7 Building by Christ’s Inspiration

2.8 A Summary of Raw and Real things about the Apostolic!

2.1 Some Initial Clarification

By the amount of feedback and questions asked, it seems that it would be helpful to explain our recent decisions to step forward into a fluid apostolic future. We are moving forward into multiplied expressions of apostolic households in accountable friendships and relationships. We are still walking in accountable relationship with the very same people that we have always been [with some obvious and practical changes]. All our friendships are still intact as far as we know. Accountable friendships can never be an obligation or imposed from the outside by a system. Accountable friendships can only be something the Holy Spirit does, they are divine, can never be imposed, but are invited, and carry the authenticity of the Holy Spirit. We do not follow a name – we follow people. We are all simply friends that will continue to enjoy together what we already have, some in these friendships, are called perhaps so far to help build in an apostolic sense, but all the relationships in this family [and elsewhere] are important. Various talks and articles can be referenced that will set out where we stand at the moment, such as an article by Chris Wienand – http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/wienand-from-a-network-to-a-movement.doc. And a talk he gave on transition at the Toronto “Together For Equipping ’09” in Toronto [Session 8] – http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/210509-tfe09-session-8.mp3 . Also available at http://defleuriot.wordpress.com, are other reference material titled “Apostolic Adventures” and “A theological Emphasis – parts 1 & 2”. Both our theology and ecclesiology are being developed in this transition.

2.2 Building an Apostolic Future

With regard to the future, what does it look like? We will continue to walk in a real and accountable relationship with all those that we now already are. The system has never covered us! Did many of us not already run for our lives from such things? However, let us ask God to increase the circle of our accountability, and we can help each other in this. Some of the initial building blocks of a loosening ecclesiology were covered in a talk given recently at Fredericton, New Brunswick - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/300809-a-proper-emphasis-of-leadership.mp3. Our callings are not man made, or system financed/fueled. We serve without allegiance to any system, or hierarchy. The gift to cover apostolically is a grace gift, and it is God given, and never imposed, and certainly not demanded, or even expected. We are all free. In a practical sense, I and others are seeing that we need to continue to train, equip, ordain, and nurture, undergird, support, pray for, and serve all those whom God gives us to serve among our friendships and beyond. In short, Dudley’s “sons” have now grown up, and perhaps there is some hope in all of this for God to use all of us [and many more if we keep our eyes on Jesus first, rather than on what we have built] to reach many more places, and cities and countries, including the 4000 as yet unreached people’s groups!

All that has been built has been legitimate, and God given. Our decision, therefore, strikes at the very heart of what we perceive to be a danger in protecting what has been built, instead of building forward toward a more fluid and expanding future of more Christ and less of us with what has already been built. God alone determines who builds with whom in close proximity and harnessed together! It is fundamentally important for us NOT to do anything at any time that smacks of hierarchy, denominationalism, or that is politically motivated by system or through the subtle pressure of allegiance, or of perceived loyalties. As we stride out with others into a multiplied future that is truly founded on accountable friendships with those ahead of us and with whoever chooses to walk alongside or behind, or even at a distance, we believe that the Holy Spirit will confirm it with signs and wonders following! Moreover, to do it by equipping leaders; by continuing to plant churches; by reaching new cities, and by opening regions with people equipped to go in an accountable fashion, and with all those whom God sends.

2.3 The Question of Primary Relationships and other Practical Points

With regard to the use of apostolic terms, some fundamental things will change, such as needing to clarify what it means to be “submitted to the NCMI team”. For example, we might say that we are accountable to certain leaders As mentioned, We see the biblical pattern shown in the book of Acts, where churches, and leaders were submitted to apostolic leaders [and to those who were functioning on their teams], such as Paul, or Peter’s! We have been asked if we intend to continue to be “an NCMI relating church”. Sadly “being a relating church” carries with it the presumption of systemized thinking, and has placed unhelpful expectations on the churches and leaders. The nature of the apostolic is to pour into a local church until leaders are raised up and it is out of the overflow of that leadership that the kingdom is extended exponentially. In an ecclesiological sense, the apostolic is thus never the focus, but the local churches are. When the focus shifts, what is fragrant becomes compulsive and imposed. The churches must remain the main reason for why the apostles work. We see future events becoming looser in ecclesiology, with base church emphases rather than “single team driven”. Our view of building teams is more base-church centered; raising up other base churches; partnering together with leaders who have trans-local gifting but who are not presently in base churches; and keeping the emphasis on investing in leaders who may themselves be called to lead their own teams. If I were to be asked what it is I am called to do, I would say, that I sense the privilege of being involved in helping any leader to be equipped to lead others – i.e. a “teams within teams” emphasis, rather than leading one team, or of raising up one team. The relational foundation of such service can never be outside the bounds of mutual trust and friendship.

Most of us have been in prior wineskins where people were ‘required’ or expected at events. In the words of a friend, what we want to avoid is the presumption of relationships. In addition, we want to make space for each leader to choose to relate primarily to different apostolic people? What is a primary relationship? It is with those who we [leaders and churches] invite to input into areas of discipline, doctrine, and direction, in the same way that the Corinthian church saw their relationship with Paul and with his team, as probably more ‘primary’ than say, their relationship with Apollos! Apostles serve churches, and care for them. A primary relationship should therefore, be real, and birthed from a place of mutual love, and never imposed as a rule or condition, but out of testimony, trust and friendship. Some have asked, “Who do we say we are submitted/[or are accountable] to?” The biblical answer is simply, to God, and through Him primarily to this or that apostolic leader, and perhaps to others that may not be part of our present friendships! This pattern was very apparent in the churches of the New Testament. Only God gives gifts and callings. Apostolic gifts and callings emerge under His leadership and affirmation. Apostolic callings are, in this way, grace given, and not man driven. They are never imposed by system or succession, but set apart by the Holy Spirit. Loys

2.4 Pruning for Sustainable Growth

With regard to the next steps, we see a season of shaking and pruning that will produce even greater accountability to God, and thus more effective ministry under the Spirit’s [and not man’s] authority. We have realized that a tree that is not pruned at the beginning of every season, might look good, but ends up expending its energy supporting dead wood. The fruit of such a tree is usually small and bitter. Without pruning, we spend our energy protecting. Conversely, a tree that is pruned may look initially bad to an undiscerning eye, but ends up investing all of its strength into new branches [sustainable growth], and to produce fruit that is large and juicy. This may be the very thing needed to produce better apostolic relationships between apostles and churches. Some of these relationships may have grown systemized, institutional, too tightly ecclesiological, too comfortable or uncomfortable, too convenient, presumptuous, immature or ‘expected’, or even perhaps having become merely a token of friendship with little spiritually intentional substance and purpose.

2.5 Building in Accountable Unity

The New Testament does not promote systems; tight ecclesiology structures; obligatory relationships; mandatory procedures, and insistence on allegiances. Neither does it support pressured loyalties that govern relationships. Yet, the main figures were genuinely accountable as far as we could see by the letters written. The churches were completely free to relate with the leaders they felt they were in genuine relationship with, and in fact, they were encouraged by Paul to do so, “Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly — mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” However, to say that the Corinthians church did not have a primary relationship with Paul would be err on the wrong side of proper and necessary accountability [though not imposed, but obvious, fragrant, friendship-based, authentic, and non-systemized].

As we have said, accountability is not a technique, it is a trust, and it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. We go back to our relationships to discover trust, and we learn to shun the techniques in which we have identified. For example, we sometimes look for pat answers when we should have been looking for a Person – and that Person is God. However, accountability does not stop with God, it is worked out in humility with those God gives us. The Acid test is: If we are in trouble, which apostolic leader will we call first? In the Book of Hebrews, we are told to ‘obey’ our leaders [Obey [peitho], means to be convinced, to be persuaded, to trust in, to have confidence in]. This kind of ‘obedience’ is not demanded, or imposed as a requirement or duty. Our submission is therefore a choice that we should be free to make at all times, and cannot be legislated to by a system, or by allegiance or by any kind of pressure whatsoever.

At the heart of our DNA is the pulse of unimposed accountability. This cannot be systemized. The signature truth of “accountability” was brought to me in a dream on the 21st December 2000, after I had been feeling that people and church leaders were generally struggling to build genuine friendships and accountable relationships. In the dream, I was abused, and woke up weeping, and saying to God “surely they want me Lord, and not just my revelation”! He replied loudly enough for me to hear it clearly, “Go and look in the Gospels and you will see, that they all had a relationship with their revelation, that was bigger than their revelation of relationship with me.”

We have to say that God has always sought to place us under proper accountable relationships with various people whose purpose was not to control us, but to facilitate God’s blessing over our lives. We truly believe that this has helped us [and those that have walked with us also], to stay in a humble place, and hopefully in a submissive place, which should not be confused with weak, ineffectual, or subservient. It is a place of true power, authority, where we are discovering what Jesus meant when he compared the Centurion’s understanding of the strong connection between “submission and authority” to great faith. Incisive words written by Nic Davis clarify this subject, “Is it possible in truth to control a man’s heart by controlling his behavior, his office or his geography? Is this what “accountability” has boiled down to? That if a man be part of a church or a “team” or a “pastorate”, it suffices for him to be “accountable”? Joab, Lot, Judas, Demas were not accountable. Controlled maybe. They were all “in team”. A man’s heart is what guides him. Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life. No-one else can guard it. Only God’s Spirit and sentry in me. The heart is either soft or stone, good or bad, becoming better or worse. It is either Spirit-controlled or under compulsions. An offended man is like a walled city – polite, but indifferent. An ambitious man knows exactly how to tow the line and coo with the doves. A passive man knows how to look holy. A yes man always looks good to a driven leader. A sinful man knows how to give away the smaller sins. An impressionist knows exactly how to turn the facts into something more palatable. An unteachable man always has a fine-sounding argument. A grumpy man will still laugh when everyone else does. A weak-willed man will go with the flow and not cause a ripple. And what of “loners”? A loner on team is a subversive. A loner off team is a secessionist. A loner in point position is a benign savage. A loner in retirement is sour… “What’s your point??”. Mmm, the point is that only intimacy, mutual love and respect can create the bridges for covenant “accountability”. I am not speaking here of “warning the divisive man”, or “handing the grievous sinner over to Satan”, but the realities of invited counsel, the pains of disclosed shame, the heights of vision and the depths of despair. Stuff that makes for great bands, bound and binding themselves to one another in love. Either one Tuning Fork is raising up a symphony, or many instruments are playing a few careful and cautious notes together, to avoid a cacophony. Laws of compulsion introduce sterility, cowardice and imitation, and pillage our entrepreneurship, courage and blazing adventure. In one, we wear masks until our dying day. In the other, we peel off the veneers and find God in each other through the shock of seeing the “warts and all”. Under legislated accountability, people are either heroes or zeroes. Under covenant love, we all have strengths and weaknesses; we can accept all men, even sinners, and enjoy their strengths while covering over much nakedness.”

2.6 Defending an Accountable Unity

In settling disputes, it is important to draw the distinction between the relational and the theological [without forgetting that they are linked as well]. We are for example, never told how Paul and Barnabas resolved their personal difference in the matter of Mark, although the letter to the Corinthians seems to suggest that they did ‘re-find’ each other after some time [1 Corinthians 9.6] [God did it]. Paul, on the other hand, takes matters more firmly in hand when it concerns a point of theology. He makes it quite clear to the Galatian churches what he thinks of Peter’s theology. I say this, to say, that there is much more leeway to let the Holy Spirit reconcile a personal difference [or even ones that may affect a circle of others], but the Holy Spirit seems to allow much less room in the body of Christ for leaders to continue to flow in erroneous theology. Theological differences carry an “urgent to resolve” tag as we saw in the Acts 15 discussion at Jerusalem. Then there is the difference attached between what is theologically fundamental and what is theologically peripheral, such as in the matter of “not eating food offered to idols” [Paul agrees in Jerusalem but then writes against it in Romans 14]. A point of discussion might be how does this all relate to accountability.

Accountability is first to our Christ [and to the Holy Spirit's work in us], and to God’s Word, and second, to the household of believers [including God's offices’ of leadership administration both inside and outside of the local church]. An imbalance [or shift of priority] in any of these, leads to multiple problems, such as, first, to the law creeping into our theology under many guises, and under many names [where "submission", "obedience", "service", and even "the cause of Christ" are wrongly emphasized]. We are not lessening the authenticity of God’s law, but only that it is irrelevant to a Born-again believer. Second, accountability leads to an ecclesiology that becomes too systemized and thus begins to eclipse our Christ [love measured by loyalty, faithfulness measured by allegiance], and third to relationships that become presumptuous [friendships measured by function].

When an ecclesiology is shaken up [as it was in Antioch - as seen through the letter to the Galatians], it is usually related to a theology that needs to be re-examined, but is it not folly to describe the molting of an eagle as a dying eagle? I believe that these are the same issues we are now facing, I believe that the years we spent building an apostolic ecclesiology, were not matched by a deepening and developing theology. This is what has caused a lessening of true accountability toward a presumption [or familiarity] of apostolic relationships, and a presumption of support from churches by the apostolic [hence the "systemization"]. Even speaking of the “apostolic” may have the tendency to distract us away from the face-to-face friendships, and spiritually intimate relationships needed for the apostolic to be authentic [see Galatians 2]. Substitute forms of ‘accountability” have slipped in under our noses, and in many guises. The level of reaction against those who have moved forward is some evidence of this [i.e. a leader, who had been asked to consider a church plant, was told recently, that he would not be allowed to walk in primary relationship with someone in our tribe he felt an authentic connection to]. Happily, though, overseas the guys seem to have moved forward, and are now mostly all functioning with honor alongside each other, and without this “camp” mindset that we see is still being fueled by some in Canada – Wow, is God not good that he is helping us to mature.

What is the theological point of development? I believe God is calling us into a deeper Christ focus, and into a fresh revelation of God’s sovereignty in all we do. God is getting us more conscious of the Trinity. Any sense of self-justification adds to the cross and obscures our Christ. We all need a ‘grace on grace’ experience of the Holy Spirit’s nearness, and of His intimate and personal love for each of us. Let us think of Barnabas’ testimony about the Antioch church, “When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.“ The writer of Acts goes on to testify that Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith. I heard in a time of prayer this morning, “The Lord who loves His bride, uses very dear men to preach his Word”. It is only this revelation of Christ that enables us to accept each other’s faultiness, and not to go about on a witch-hunt against the so-called ‘unfaithful’ behavior of others. We should ask perhaps:

a.     Has there been too much judgment of others who do not do things in a particular way [see Paul’s response to even those who preached out of “envy and rivalry”]?

b.    Have we gotten too arrogant about what “we have built”?

c.   Have we gotten too comfortable with our “vehicles”?

d.     Has the enemy subtly crept into our language, our relationships, our preaching, our apostolic initiatives, and into our friendships with each other,

e.    Have our expectations of one another risen above Christ’s expectations of us?

Such things will drive us to man’s authority, and away from the Spirit’s authority. Moreover, the Lord may be requiring that we let go of all that we have built, in trust of Him. If we do not, loyalty will precede love, and allegiance, the Lord! Is Christ not looking for more love-struck ministers? These ones will do the most to resist becoming brand-builders! Therefore, yes, a proper understanding of accountability does come down to our theology in the end [especially the ‘Theos’ in our theology], since only a proper view of Christ can generate a proper view of our relationship with all others.

I would agree with Nic Davis, that when the focus is on the piano being in tune, instead on the tuning fork that tunes the piano, we drift into the “governmentally obsessed” stuff that we have been into. Setting anything up as “important” seems to lift it up to our view of Christ, though actually it conceals a lessened-Christ view of our various situations. I am realizing more how quickly a wrong theology can think to make Christ our servant rather than our Lord. Here’s what I think: let us live in the passion that flows only from Christ, and let us live from that passion into all that he has set for us, rather than relegate our freedom to the self-preoccupation [includes “our” church], myopic, and reductionist attempts to prevent and protect. As Nic says, one battle right now is “between romance and the theory of romance” – let us choose the romance! I conclude with an appropriate comment he sent to me recently, “I have at times definitely made lesser things equal with Christ, in my zeal for the church and her mission. Christ owns and builds the Church. He leads and fulfils the mission. He has all we need. He is all we need. The more we can focus our minds, lives and people on Him, the more power, maturity and unity we will see. He is the Word of God, the fullness and power and consummation of the word of God.”

2.7 Building by Christ’s Inspiration – a cry for the future!

A recent concern has been the outcry against the decision of some to step away from a “systemized apostolicity”, but I ask the following questions:

Questions about the name “NCMI”:

Dudley never wanted a name. We supposedly chose one for the sake of “administering finances etc”, and that is what we have preached all over the nations. However, the need for “administration”, “finances”, and “legitimacy in certain nations” could very well have been undertaken by base churches, and without the need for more global systemization.

1. Where in the scripture does a “name”, or following a “name” take precedence over following the Lord?
2. Where in the Scripture is the apostolic described by a name?
3. Why is there such reaction against those who choose not to follow a name, or who choose not to describe what they do by a name? Is it not obvious that when we give what we do apostolically a name, that we lead each other and those who follow into protecting what we have named?
4. What would everyone’s relational response be, if we were to say that we no longer believe in an “NCMI system”, or even that our family of friendships does not need to be called anything? Do we actually have authentic relationships that can sustain what the Holy Spirit is doing without a name, and without a church list?
5. Have we honestly asked ourselves what we mean when we say we are “NCMI”, or “the NCMI team”, or part of “the NCMI tribe”, or “we have three circles” etc.? As a friend wrote recently, “Maybe we should look back, and maybe we will find that in trying to control and manage domains, we lose our status as darlings of God. We “name it and tame it”.”
6. If we are willing to accept and embrace many apostolic leaders within our present relationships, are we not saying also that “NCMI” as we have known it has actually ceased to exist as an intentional apostolic endeavor, and if so, is that not very good indeed?
7. Is calling our new apostolic ecclesiology “a tribe of many apostolic spheres”, not just more of the same thing? Is replacing “one team” with “spheres”, not simply a multiplication of the same?
8. Has not our language of “relating churches” become our trap? Since when does a ‘family of churches’, take precedence over the call to go; to reach; to encourage; following the Holy Spirit to wherever he chooses, and to let in the apostolic “surprises” of God, like a “Damascus Road” experience, or Cornelius’ household?

Questions about the “apostolic team” or “teams”:

Dudley was against even having a team list. We supposedly chose to use “team” to describe our friendships and service together of the churches that we relate to as apostles, and that is what we preached all over the nations. It is interesting that we used the word “team” at a time when “team” was the secular buzzword. However, team has become a line that we are either, in, or out, or off, or on [it does not describe fragrant relationships, it describes the boundary]. It has become systemized, an expectation, and a presumption!

1. Where in Scripture does “an apostolic team” take precedence above individuals who flow apostolically?
2. Was what we were called into ever more about an “apostolic team” than about the churches we serve? What, indeed, do we have to lose by going back to the basics of New Testament apostolic ministry?
3. Has “primary relationships” [a word I cannot find in Scripture] not become impersonal and presumptuous, when it was perhaps intended to affirm a special God-given, and accountable friendship between an apostle and a church leader, or church?

Questions about a proper attitude in our transition:

Dudley always taught that what we do “shouts louder than what we say”, and that, in fact, “what we do shouts so loud that people cannot hear what we are saying.” Dudley also taught that what we were building was not for us, but for the generations to come. We began this endeavor in humility, tenderness, honor and respect, can we do otherwise as we forge together [under the Holy Spirit] the way for those who will follow.

1. Are we not hypocrites, if we recognize the need for change on the hand, but protect the past on the other, as if we somehow need to?
2. Do our reactions not sound out the warning of what we have fallen into? Impatience, judgment, and fear all grow from the desire to control!
3. Would not God’s compassion flow more freely through us if we were to disengage from systemized thinking? Would we not hunger more for the significance that comes only from God? Would we not be even hungrier for the Holy Spirit, and for Him to take us into the more of God?

There is health in the fact that we cannot build something God is not building, and that we cannot be someone the Lord does not want us to be. Therefore, we are doing more than merely “loosening our ecclesiology”, we are summarily [and without delay] abandoning all that does not line up with Scripture, to make room for our Christ… we are not retreating back to protect what is ours. We are adding breadth, and space, and length, and width to both our situations and to the future, and to our next steps by being willing to let go and to let God. May they be humble and tender steps? May they be steps that bring glory to God? We are stepping ahead.

Everyone expects something of others, and if we yield to that first instead of Christ’s Love, we live in the guilt of expectation, rather than in the grace of Christ’s inspiration. Imagine, if having fought for many years not to build camps, that we would now be forced to choose camps. Whenever we place our camps, or our Christian culture, ahead of our Christ, we place what we build under man’s authority, and begin to look for our satisfaction and justification from the wrong places. Our reason to be involved with anyone is not because we have to, but that God wants it [which should amount to loving to], and that they want to. Solomon when faced with two women, found the one thing that would reveal the real. The one whose child it was, was willing to give up the baby… it mattered more to her that the baby would live than that the baby would be hers.

We dare not speak of others in ways that makes them look bad, lest we forget that RT Kendall line: “But by the grace of God, goes I”. Then what we have done is to have turned our face from our Christ to other things, and from what is beauty, to the beast. What context we minister in and who we team with is secondary to four things: What God wants for us personally, what is the fruit that is grown in us, is it ready to be given away, is it personally invited/recognized, so that we do not live by our agenda but by God’s will and God’s way. As we are seeing the inroads of systemized thinking amongst us more clearly, we have understood the simplicity of a true apostolic wineskin – personal relationships between an apostle and with individual church leaders. Wanting something more than God might open the door to getting it without Him.

What we do or do not do is less important than whose we are… We are His, first [the True Apostle]! Here is a test: dismantling the system in our ecclesiology will reveal the props, crutches, and blind spots, and will show whether we are paying lip service to the system, and are bound by any obligation other than to Love! If we live by any system, we begin to either idolize it, or are enslaved by it, and our leaders take a place in our hearts that is more causal than our Christ. When we step out from a team we discover whether what we were doing was through the system, or through the Spirit! Denominationalism has arrived when our language changes from love to loyalty, from intimacy to allegiance, from expression to exclusivism, and when “primary relationships” are with a system, and not with the particular apostolic individuals that God has used to serve and help us!

Have we become marketers of the things we do well, or do we ask this important question: what are the things that we are not doing well! We cannot repeat the mantras, and at the same time live without the substance of it. It is plain that the pendulum swings one side at a time. Our human tendency is, therefore, to prefer the place we are at above the place God is taking us to, but those who cast themselves on the Lord lose nothing! Only God makes us comfortable in our own ‘skin’! In this transition, there is such a potential for misunderstanding. So, it is predicated on us to be gracious, understanding, patient, and to let God do it whichever way He chooses – to make room for His freedom and diversity without losing our unity!

2.8 Summary of Raw and Real things about the Apostolic

A friend said recently that the biggest thing that Jesus is doing on the earth is that He is taking the preeminence again. He is in a very strong way preparing His bride for His return… we pray the Lord helps us to stay humble… this is what ought to be preoccupying us, and not church or apostolic politics. When we are distracted from Jesus, personal conflicts begin to grow, and we see how quickly we can slip into systemized thinking, and away from the Spirit’s leading. When we slip into system we come under man’s authority, and from that point on, we can only build what will accrue to man.

When we walk in our father’s arms, we walk without debt to others [except to love], and without unhealthy expectations from others. Our paradosis is that we will not build in obligation to any system, but by submission to the Spirit. Why would anyone be afraid to cast himself or herself on the Lord?

The system has no power to keep what we have safe! The system is an illusion that will suffer in times of shaking. It happens. When we trust God with what we do, ministry is enhanced, and it is transformed. We get into the more of God. We get to see a different facet when we cast off the shores of our conveniences and of our comforts. We discover we are not walking away from friendship and accountability by walking into his arms. Our cry is for more of him and less of us. We should not be afraid to allow situations where function has gotten ahead of friendship to be challenged! We have each invested extensively into a rich and mutual inheritance. Nothing in that sense has changed, but what we have can never be more than the Lord who gathered it, or more than the voice that tells us we are to co-labor together in that field! If that is where the Lord has called us to be, there needs to be the freedom to express our uniqueness and diversity with honor and respect to all in it.

Loys